I'm going to give you two groups of words. One has to do with love and the other the opposite. Which side best describes your life as a whole? Which do you experience the most? Which side is most in you or happens to you?

Group A -

patient, kind, does not envy, does not boast, is not proud, is not rude,is not self-seeking,is not easily angered,keeps no record of wrongs,does not delight in evil,always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Group B - lover of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure, sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissension, envy; drunkenness

How does the contrast between these two groups of words feel to you?

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I'm going to give you two groups of words. One has to do with love and the other the opposite. Which side best describes your life as a whole? Which do you experience the most? Which side is most in you or happens to you?

Group A -

patient, kind, does not envy, does not boast, is not proud, is not rude,is not self-seeking,is not easily angered,keeps no record of wrongs,does not delight in evil,always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Group B - lover of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure, sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissension, envy; drunkenness

How does the contrast between these two groups of words feel to you?

God's love, Vs. the Ways of the World

Group A = Buddhists.

Group B = The majority of the world.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Group A = Buddhists.

Group B = The majority of the world.

I really doubt the majority of the world practices witchcraft.

I agree with group A, Buddhists.

Group B: The Christian perception of the mass majority of the world, completely ignoring that 90% of Americans belive in God, and over 2/3 believe in hell.

True, although it didn't say practice it just said "witchcraft."

Oh, although the numbers vary from surveys, some more recent one's put christianity at around 75% I believe. Down 10% from 10 years ago.

I agree with the assessment. The world is supposably going to hell because the majority are sinners, yet the majority are christians.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

True, although it didn't say practice it just said "witchcraft."

Oh, although the numbers vary from surveys, some more recent one's put christianity at around 75% I believe. Down 10% from 10 years ago.

I agree with the assessment. The world is supposably going to hell because the majority are sinners, yet the majority are christians.

Those were the numbers from the most recent survey I've seen. The question was "Do you believe in God", not religion specific. That probably accounts for the disparity. Regardless, I can't think of any serious religion that condones most of Group B.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

I really doubt the majority of the world practices witchcraft.

I agree with group A, Buddhists.

Group B: The Christian perception of the mass majority of the world, completely ignoring that 90% of Americans belive in God, and over 2/3 believe in hell.

Actually, only 4% of the teens from the 80's generation are believers, and attend church.

Those words represent the duality of mankind in my opinion. They exist to some extent in every man woman and child that has ever lived.

quote:Originally posted by HellzShellz:

Actually, only 4% of the teens from the 80's generation are believers, and attend church.

Those are some real specific qualifications. Lets look at something a little more over-arching, shall we?

Here (http://www.harrisinteractive.com/harris_poll/index.asp?PID=408)

This survey found that 79% of Americans believe there is a God, and that 66% are absolutely certain this is true. Only 9% do not believe in God, while a further 12% are not sure.

While most people (55%) attend a religious service a few times a year or more often, only a minority of the public (36%) attends a religious service once a month or more often, with about a quarter (26%) attending every week.

Or here. (http://www.religioustolerance.org/chr_poll3.htm)

Or here. (http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/wat/archive/wat042400.htm)

Or here. (http://www.buzzle.com/editorials/10-24-2003-46896.asp)

In fact, I couldn't find a single survey with numbers remotely near where you said. And you wonder why people say Christians have a persecution complex. Maybe you just don't accept people whith slightly different beliefs as Christians. This is America. Christians havn't been fed to lions in 1700 years. Face it, you guys have a serious majority.

Everyone has both.

Christians like anybody else.

What's the point?

I probably have as much

of the first column as

most christians do.

The same basic motivators

make christians play their

little jesus pretend game

as make everyone do anything.

//Only ancient books can make

you a good person. Remember

that, people.//

Read those again but

this time think about

your bible god.

Totally in the goody

catagory, right? Wrong.

Your god is an ass like

the rest of us. Almost

like people have been

interpreting reality

through an imaginary

bigger version of themselves.

Just a thought.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I'm going to give you two groups of words. One has to do with love and the other the opposite. Which side best describes your life as a whole? Which do you experience the most? Which side is most in you or happens to you?

Group A -

patient, kind, does not envy, does not boast, is not proud, is not rude,is not self-seeking,is not easily angered,keeps no record of wrongs,does not delight in evil,always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Group B - lover of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure, sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissension, envy; drunkenness

How does the contrast between these two groups of words feel to you?

Did the possibility ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, not everything is so clear-cut into black and white categories?

quote: Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Group A -

patient, kind, does not envy, does not boast, is not proud, is not rude,is not self-seeking,is not easily angered,keeps no record of wrongs,does not delight in evil,always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Group B - lover of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure, sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissension, envy; drunkenness

How does the contrast between these two groups of words feel to you?

I picked through both Groups trying to most accurately pick out the adjectives I thought would describe me best:

patient, kind

is not easily angered

does not delight in evil

always protects,

always hopes,

always perseveres

lover of money

proud,

unholy,

rash,

lover of pleasure

selfish ambition

It was just about dead even between both of the groups.

quote: Originally posted by crazed_hamster:

Did the possibility ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, not everything is so clear-cut into black and white categories?

I feel great now, it appears as though I'm perfectly balanced. http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)

The truth is we are all guilty of the later and mostly lack the former.

The first group is from the Bible in 1 Corinthians 13 as it describes what Love is. This is the goal of the Christian. It is to become what those words describe. Albeit, we fail a lot of the time.

Those are the words that describe Jesus and how He feels about us. If we come out from behind ourselves and take a deeper look we will see how elementary this is.

The other group is from 1 Timothy3 and 2 Timothy3. It describes the nature of man. It describes you and me and everybody else. It is our natural falability as we are born into that condition. This way leads to spiritual death and there is only one way out and that is through the blood and body of Jesus Christ.

This is not a measure of how good or how bad we are. It is a testimony to our guilt before the eyes of God. To love God is to forgo our natural ways and give them to God in obediance to His will that we live His ways. That is to love one another in the ways described in group A.



This is the very foundation of it all. To love one another and that is the religion God desires. Stop being decieved by well crafted arguements. Love one another.





[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-04-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

The truth is we are all guilty of the later and mostly lack the former.

The first group is from the Bible in 1 Corinthians 13 as it describes what Love is. This is the goal of the Christian. It is to become what those words describe. Those are the words that describe Jesus and how He feels about us. If we come out from behind ourselves and take a deeper look we will see how elementary this is.

The other group is from 1 Timothy3 and 2 Timothy3. It describes the nature of man. It describes you and me and everybody else. It is our natural falability as we are born into that condition. This way leads to spiritual death and there is only one way out and that is through the blood and body of Jesus Christ.

This is not a measure of how good or how bad we are. It is a testimony to our guilt before the eyes of God. To love God is to forgo our natural ways and give them to God in obediance to His will that we live His ways. That is to love one another in the ways described in group A.



This is the very foundation of it all. To love one another and that is the religion God desires. Stop being decieved by well crafted arguements. Love one another.



Again, "witchcraft" does not describe mankind. How can you not consider this asinine?

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

The world is supposably going to hell because the majority are sinners, yet the majority are christians.

The arguements in your statement are critically flawed. It is not biblicaly accurate. The world is going to perish and those who revelled in it will be judged according to the motives and deeds from the heart and mind. Even the whiter sepulchers, or in other words the white washed tomb called the hypocrites will not be able to hide from it. Not everyone who claims to be a Christian is a Christian.

We are all sinners.

quote:Originally posted by crazed_hamster:

Did the possibility ever occur to you that maybe, just maybe, not everything is so clear-cut into black and white categories?

It occurs to me every waking second I have. Believe me when I say that there is nobody who walks in just one or the other. The point isn't to say be one or the other either. The point is to show the contrast between what is called sin or death and what is life in respect to spirtuality.

The point is if your desire to live in the confines of one group over the other then those words act as if they where a spiritual mirror to your soul. The Devil is in the details and by the 'fruits of our labors' will we reveal what camp we belong to.

[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-04-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Again, "witchcraft" does not describe mankind. How can you not consider this asinine?

You are right. Witchcraft doesn't describe mankind. I can not argue. It would be asinine to try and describe mankind with a single word. That is why there is much more to this then the words listed.

Love doesn't describe mankind either but it is there to show the depths of our rebellion.

I don't doubt that, but I'm talking about TEENS. Not all, but teens.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

It occurs to me every waking second I have. Believe me when I say that there is nobody who walks in just one or the other. The point isn't to say be one or the other either. The point is to show the contrast between what is called sin or death and what is life in respect to spirtuality.

The point is if your desire to live in the confines of one group over the other then those words act as if they where a spiritual mirror to your soul. The Devil is in the details and by the 'fruits of our labors' will we reveal what camp we belong to.



You're presupposing that the two groups cannot coexist. Like AngryFemme, I too have plenty of both traits. While I may not desire those traits, I still have them. Does that suddenly make half of me a devil-worshipper, while the other half is worships God. In reality, I believe in neither, and thus worship neither. How does that reveal which side I'm on. For example, how does pride fall into the Devil's camp? Pride is wonderful. It is through pride that we can take the reward we rightfully deserve for accomplishing what we have done. Remove pride, give all the credit to God, and what reward is there for our labor? The possibility of an eternal reward http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)... It's sad. What about pleasure? Isn't your burning desire to love and serve your God a form of pleasure in itself? It helps you to erase any guilt you may have from past actions. It gives you the promise of God's rewards, which give you pleasure. Therefore, while serving your God, you are also yielding to Satan.

quote:Originally posted by crazed_hamster:

You're presupposing that the two groups cannot coexist..

I would be a fool to say that they can not coexist. Of course they do. However, this is more about a contrast revealing what is love and what is not. In the spiritual these things can not coexist. The best analogy is to think of a cave or a room with no windows. It is dark but when you turn on a light the darkness goes away. So if we say that Love is to light as darkness is to the opposite then we see it is impossible for them to coexist. The bottom line is God is the proverbial light and in His perfection, there can be no darkness.



quote: Like AngryFemme, I too have plenty of both traits. While I may not desire those traits, I still have them. Does that suddenly make half of me a devil-worshipper, while the other half is worships God.

You are thinking on the secular level. What I'm talking about is something all together different.

quote:In reality, I believe in neither, and thus worship neither. How does that reveal which side I'm on. For example, how does pride fall into the Devil's camp? Pride is wonderful. It is through pride that we can take the reward we rightfully deserve for accomplishing what we have done.

It is pride that is the barrier that prevents one from accepting correction when they are wrong. Pride will tell you all kinds of lies that eventually destroys all that surrounds you.

quote:Remove pride, give all the credit to God, and what reward is there for our labor? The possibility of an eternal reward http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif (http://www.totse.com/bbs/biggrin.gif)... It's sad. What about pleasure?



It is the ones who do not know God who do not see pleasure in following Him. With God, the spirit is fed, dressed and provided for. The pleasure in living a guilt free conscience is far greater reward then the temporary pleasures of living for the flesh alone. WIth God there is satisfaction and contentment while with the world there is nothing but pacification and never ending thirst for more.

quote:

Isn't your burning desire to love and serve your God a form of pleasure in itself?

Yes it is. Nobody said following God is void of pleasure or joy or happiness. It comes in a different form.

quote:

It helps you to erase any guilt you may have from past actions. It gives you the promise of God's rewards, which give you pleasure. Therefore, while serving your God, you are also yielding to Satan.

I see your twist in logic but it is not true. Pleasure derived from following God is different then what is gained from the world which is no gain at all. A person who does not believe or see the sprititual doesn't automatically make them a satanist. It just makes them a part of the world.

In the rhealm of the spiritual there are two lights. One that governs by love and one that governs by death and destruction. These forces are that which are at what war for our souls daily.

Quoted, for high relevance:

quote:Originally posted by FunkyZombie:

Those words represent the duality of mankind in my opinion. They exist to some extent in every man woman and child that has ever lived.

It's this sense of duality upon which religions were initially formed.

Sig's Dark/Light analogy summed it up perfectly.

I'm sure not all Atheists live moral lives. But some do. I wonder what God's perception of a person would be, assuming that person lived a moral life free from (most) "sin", and who did it just because, with absolutely no fear of God or promise of an extended afterlife. They did it without direction, without being reprimanded, without using the Bible to guide them each step of the way. They did it without the carrot-on-the-stick reward mechanism offered in the Bible.

Seems somehow holier than the people who have to refer to scripture or attend church or profess a belief in/alliance with God. All the good attributes, the "loving" attributes you described, can all be accomplished without faith in God.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I would be a fool to say that they can not coexist. Of course they do. However, this is more about a contrast revealing what is love and what is not. In the spiritual these things can not coexist. The best analogy is to think of a cave or a room with no windows. It is dark but when you turn on a light the darkness goes away. So if we say that Love is to light as darkness is to the opposite then we see it is impossible for them to coexist. The bottom line is God is the proverbial light and in His perfection, there can be no darkness.

Since we're speaking entirely metaphorically, may I ask what the shadows would be? Where there's light there's shadow.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

It is the ones who do not know God who do not see pleasure in following Him. With God, the spirit is fed, dressed and provided for. The pleasure in living a guilt free conscience is far greater reward then the temporary pleasures of living for the flesh alone. WIth God there is satisfaction and contentment while with the world there is nothing but pacification and never ending thirst for more.

And yet, as a non-Christian, and due to my personal philosophy on life, I will experience no guilt ever. The only people who experience guilt are those who bbelieve they are doing wrong. They believe they are doing wrong, and ths feel guilt, because they have been brought up by various religions to believe that God wants certain things from them. Things that can never be achieved in this life. Thus, especially as a Christian, one will always feel condemned that they are not doing enough for God. Even with the knowledge that Christ supposedly died to forgive all your sins, you will never be truly guilt-free.

A question about living for the pleasures of the flesh. Why is it okay to indulge he pleasures of the flesh when you get to Heaven and not on Earth? What makes the difference?

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I see your twist in logic but it is not true. Pleasure derived from following God is different then what is gained from the world which is no gain at all. A person who does not believe or see the sprititual doesn't automatically make them a satanist. It just makes them a part of the world.

In the rhealm of the spiritual there are two lights. One that governs by love and one that governs by death and destruction. These forces are that which are at what war for our souls daily.



How is it different? It is still living for pleasure, whether here or in the possible later.

According to the Bible, being a part of the world, is being a part of Satan, because Satan apparently, owns and controls the earth.

I don't see which force is the one that governs with love. If you mean God, do you mind looking up in your Bible the hundreds of different references where God rules by destruction, and or threatens destruction, death, or chastening?

quote:Originally posted by crazed_hamster:

How is it different? It is still living for pleasure, whether here or in the possible later.

That is the key to the entire arguement. The difference lies in the motives of the heart. All things are done for one thing and one thing only - to serve that which has mastered us.

One man does things to please his flesh while another does things to please God. Both require continual attention but, the danger is in living only to please the flesh. Within this, the spirit is neglected leaving a soul very unbalanced.

A person will not be aware of the their spirit until God raises that spirit from death. In other words you have to be born again to be freed from the curse of sin and death that we are all born under.

quote:Since we're speaking entirely metaphorically, may I ask what the shadows would be? Where there's light there's shadow.

Not entirely metaphorically but that is one of the few ways we can identify the difference between the spirit man and flesh man. In the world there are shadows but the light I'm talking about isn't from a lightbulb or from a worldy source.

This is a great puzzle to even myself sometimes but the light of spirit comes in the form of Love or the lack of it. You either do or you don't, it's either love or it's not. For example. If a mother says to her young child, I love you but neglects to nourish or cloth the child we can see a problem with her first confession.

We know she means well in her heart but her actions testify to something different. So, I can only imagine that this condition is the shadows you've asked of when it comes to the spiritual. In other words I would see 'shadows' as spiritual confusion or misunderstanding the spiritual activity around us.

((side note: This is also an answer to the ongoing debate of "faith and works". So somebody believes in God..great..but what does it mean if their actions do not match? That is what is meant by deeds and works. You can not have faith and continue to live opposed to God by your actions.))

quote:According to the Bible, being a part of the world, is being a part of Satan, because Satan apparently, owns and controls the earth.

That is partially what is taught but I also have to add that the secular rhealm is Satan's prison and not exactly his kingdom. God is still in control of all things but the issue of a person's "free will" still exists. The devil doesn't make us sin, he only tempts us and the rest is for us to decide.



God's plan is playing out in His time and within His perfect will. History has proven prophesy and so the future has bound up the eventual destruction of sin and death. However, the salvation of souls has to be completed first.

quote:I don't see which force is the one that governs with love. If you mean God, do you mind looking up in your Bible the hundreds of different references where God rules by destruction, and or threatens destruction, death, or chastening?



We have to be careful in how we look at this and I have to be careful on how I reply to it. For one, God doesn't govern love but He 'is' love. The further away from God or 'love' that one gets the more dark the spirit becomes.

This is not a physical distance we walk or travel but it is within the chains of sin and living in disobediance to the sound doctrines of "love thy neighor" that God requires of us.

As for the judgement and payment for sin found in the bible I agree it is a horrific thing to read. However, that is not the story being told. This ties into what I said before about "spiritual confusion or misunderstanding the spiritual activity around us" In other words this is a spiritual shadow within you personally.



It is at an entire different dimension when we talk about individual sin and the sin of an entire nation. However, the bottom line is a father will discpline his son when his son does wrong. That is what is happening in those stories. In the Old Testament God made a covenent with 'Isreal' and said that they will be a prophet to the nations. Within that covenente he had conditions. He said you must follow My decree.

Within those stories you have mentioned there is a common thread tieing them all together completing a bigger picture. That thread is a message and example. Israel was being punished for their sin because they did not follow His decree.

Within those stories is the pain and suffering found by walking away from God and the eventual restoration and correction they had as a result.

God will let you walk as far away from His as you want in your heart but those He calls His He will correct them and bring them back to Him. Sometimes it isn't very pretty.

quote:And yet, as a non-Christian, and due to my personal philosophy on life, I will experience no guilt ever. The only people who experience guilt are those who bbelieve they are doing wrong. They believe they are doing wrong, and ths feel guilt, because they have been brought up by various religions to believe that God wants certain things from them. Things that can never be achieved in this life. Thus, especially as a Christian, one will always feel condemned that they are not doing enough for God. Even with the knowledge that Christ supposedly died to forgive all your sins, you will never be truly guilt-free.

I have no debate with this because our perceptions of the world are our perceptions. In a way morales are like art. Morale relativity, which I would say you agree with, is like abstract art. Meaning, it is what you make it to be. Where as following morales put down by God is like viewing something like the Mona Lisa. It never changes, it is clear as to what it is and there isn't much room for interpretation. Who is to say that what you see is wrong if you see morales like they are abstract art? Of course you will be right every time.

That is the one thing I can contrast in what you are saying is the difference between setting your own morale philosophy or one set by God. Of course 'guilt' will hardly have a say in our conduct when we set our own morale standard. We can change the height of the proverbial bar on a whim.

What you are saying is that your morale standards that you set are equal or better then Gods and that your quilt free conscience is due because you have done no wrong against the morales you set for yourself.

Then the only thing to say is that you are your own rabbi and disciple. You are your own religion in a sense.

It would take quite a bit of effort to get you to see the truth in what you are saying.

Morale relativity and ammorality is destructive to the continence of man. For which I offer an anchor for the soul. It is in the doctrines of God and no other.



[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-05-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I'm going to give you two groups of words. One has to do with love and the other the opposite. Which side best describes your life as a whole? Which do you experience the most? Which side is most in you or happens to you?

Group A -

patient, kind, does not envy, does not boast, is not proud, is not rude,is not self-seeking,is not easily angered,keeps no record of wrongs,does not delight in evil,always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Group B - lover of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure, sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissension, envy; drunkenness

How does the contrast between these two groups of words feel to you?

Group A sounds like somebody who was raised well, while group B sounds like somebody who was abused in their youth and now has trouble controlling their lives, forming logical thoughts that will help them succeed, they sound like somebody who could benefit well from therapy, but would take a long time and hard work after their long abusive youth. No, christians are not more moral than anybody else, it's just what morals you raise your children with: Group A, Believers of inequality towards homosexuals, people who try to force the teachings of their false idols upon others, senile and unwilling to accept they are wrong. Group B, Logical, kind, unmolested by their priests, wanting to help improve the world and help mankind in a reasonable way, unselfish, thoughtful.

This is actually a really good thread. It's amazing how much you can learn about a person, by a question like this.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



I have no debate with this because our perceptions of the world are our perceptions. In a way morales are like art. Morale relativity, which I would say you agree with, is like abstract art. Meaning, it is what you make it to be. Where as following morales put down by God is like viewing something like the Mona Lisa. It never changes, it is clear as to what it is and there isn't much room for interpretation. Who is to say that what you see is wrong if you see morales like they are abstract art? Of course you will be right every time.

That is the one thing I can contrast in what you are saying is the difference between setting your own morale philosophy or one set by God. Of course 'guilt' will hardly have a say in our conduct when we set our own morale standard. We can change the height of the proverbial bar on a whim.

What you are saying is that your morale standards that you set are equal or better then Gods and that your quilt free conscience is due because you have done no wrong against the morales you set for yourself.

Then the only thing to say is that you are your own rabbi and disciple. You are your own religion in a sense.

It would take quite a bit of effort to get you to see the truth in what you are saying.

Morale relativity and ammorality is destructive to the continence of man. For which I offer an anchor for the soul. It is in the doctrines of God and no other.

In reality, it is exactly the opposite. There's nothing more relative than a moral code based on a belief in god. The comparison of the abstract art couldn't fit better when it comes to the bible. There are countless interpretations of it, not to mention religions other than christianity that obviously adhere to different moralities.

Of course, this doesn't mean that by rejecting a religion-based morality, you accept moral relativism. It is a false dillema which you present. Morality is a concept used to serve man, so it should be centered on man. Human nature is the Mona Lisa that never changes, not a God who is never present to stop religious wars. Apparently, the room for interpretation is much larger than you suppose.

I could explain more, but this guy does it much better : http://www.ebonmusings.org/atheism/carrot&stick.html (i think it's the third time i'm posting this article...but it's a good one)

if anyone were to choose one of the two (A and B) they would be lying to themselves. humans are too prone to both ends of the presented spectrum to be able to say either yes, i am a pure being, or no, im impure, and thus will burn eternally. confining oneself to one group or another would essentialy be telling everyone that you are a superior being becasue you thrive in only one category, never touching the other. i dont much care where i land, as i do not have a high care for christian beliefs.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

In reality, it is exactly the opposite. There's nothing more relative than a moral code based on a belief in god. The comparison of the abstract art couldn't fit better when it comes to the bible. There are countless interpretations of it, not to mention religions other than christianity that obviously adhere to different moralities.

Of course, this doesn't mean that by rejecting a religion-based morality, you accept moral relativism. It is a false dillema which you present. Morality is a concept used to serve man, so it should be centered on man. Human nature is the Mona Lisa that never changes, not a God who is never present to stop religious wars. Apparently, the room for interpretation is much larger than you suppose.

I could explain more, but this guy does it much better : ht tp://www.e bonmusings .org/atheism/carrot&stick.html (http: //www.ebon musings.or g/atheism/ carrot&sti ck.html) (i think it's the third time i'm posting this article...but it's a good one)



I believe you have missed what I was saying.

You said;

quote:"Of course, this doesn't mean that by rejecting a religion-based morality, you accept moral relativism. It is a false dillema which you present."

It isn't a matter of accepting or rejecting a morale code or standard. What matters is understanding the consequence of living opposed to them. You see, when a law or code exists, it is enforced. A true law will have true consequence.

If you have a morale code that is resilient to guilt or consequence then you really don't have a code at all.

I can tell myself all day long not to eat fast food but if I don't have the discipline to do it am I going to be guilty and enforce my own code on myself? Sounds like a conflict in interests to me. Because what really is going to happen? I'm going to eat that burger, rub my belly and say.maybe next time..right?

I know eating burgers isnt' really a good example but just replace eating burgers with having casual sex outside of marriage or drinking to excess at a party, etc. I know the score..like I've said before, I've lived my life on both sides of the debate.

[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-06-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

It isn't a matter of accepting or rejecting a morale code or standard. What matters is understanding the consequence of living opposed to them. You see, when a law or code exists, it is enforced. A true law will have true consequence.

If you have a morale code that is resilient to guilt or consequence then you really don't have a code at all.

I can tell myself all day long not to eat fast food but if I don't have the discipline to do it am I going to be guilty and enforce my own code on myself? Sounds like a conflict in interests to me. Because what really is going to happen? I'm going to eat that burger, rub my belly and say.maybe next time..right?

I know eating burgers isnt' really a good example but just replace eating burgers with having casual sex outside of marriage or drinking to excess at a party, etc. I know the score..like I've said before, I've lived my life on both sides of the debate.



What good is a moral code when it is the consequences that force you to follow it? There would be no immorality in the world if it would have negative personal consequences.

I think religion leads you to confuse terms like "morality" with terms like "code" and "law". They are not synonymous. Morality is a guide for us to choose what is the right thing to do in a given situation, but it is only that, a guide, not a set of laws with consequences. There are those who would not feel guilty when not following this guide; you could call those people immoral. However, the consequences of immorality tend to harm others rather than the immoral one. The fast food analogy is false. There is nothing fundamentally immoral in casual sex between consenting adults or unhealthy diet. There are a lot of things that can be bad for our physical or mental health but as long as they are not affecting anyone else, why would they concern morality?

Religion makes the mistake in arbitrarily dictating what's good for man, setting it in stone as laws and calling it morality. And it has been proven wrong in many, many cases because those laws do not come from a divine origin but from misinformed and prejudiced mortal men who lived thousands of years ago. I am not saying that religious texts are devoid of importance or relevance to today's problems, but our knowledge is much vaster now and it is time to get rid of the "laws" and prejudices that bring misery under the guise of morality.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

What good is a moral code when it is the consequences that force you to follow it? There would be no immorality in the world if it would have negative personal consequences.

I'm going to rewrite what you wrote and hope you'll see the point I was trying to make.

- The moral code that has the consequences that force you to follow it is a code with authority. There would be no immorality in the world if we could see the long term negative personal consequences instead of living for the hear and now.

quote:

I think religion leads you to confuse terms like "morality" with terms like "code" and "law". They are not synonymous. Morality is a guide for us to choose what is the right thing to do in a given situation, but it is only that, a guide, not a set of laws with consequences."

You are right. Religion does seem to steal away from "free will" and dictate morality through rules and regulations. I'm not promoting or talking about religion. I don't like religion nor do I practice a religion.

You said morality is like a guide but a guide to where? I see that eventually the "guide" will bump into "law" which will eventualyl carry consequence.



quote:There are those who would not feel guilty when not following this guide; you could call those people immoral. However, the consequences of immorality tend to harm others rather than the immoral one.

So, afterall there is consequence of immorality and morality.



quote:The fast food analogy is false. There is nothing fundamentally immoral in casual sex between consenting adults or unhealthy diet. There are a lot of things that can be bad for our physical or mental health but as long as they are not affecting anyone else, why would they concern morality?

Sin to the body has been compared to mildew in a home in parts of the bible. It grows and eventually takes over and destroys it's host. However, it is more then a parasite or plague to the human soul. To a single person a 'immoral' lifestyle may not be harmful to a community as a whole now. But, the long term affects is that it grows from person to person and takes over a city, then a state and then a nation.



This will proably start another debate but, abortion is a matter of morality. This is because it is the consequence of casual sex outside of marriage and blatent disregard for the sound doctrines that would prevent such a thing.

So the human thing to do is kill the growing baby to avoid the consequences of parenthood. It is now a national law. So now since the morale compase is broken 40 million plus individual human beings have paid the price for a guilt free conscience through the laws of abortion. So it is with morale relativity.



quote:

Religion makes the mistake in arbitrarily dictating what's good for man, setting it in stone as laws and calling it morality. And it has been proven wrong in many, many cases because those laws do not come from a divine origin but from misinformed and prejudiced mortal men who lived thousands of years ago.



Here is the spin. God's morale guide leads us to Him where man's morale guide leads to nowhere. After all what is a guide for then to keep someone on track and headed in the right direction.





quote:

I am not saying that religious texts are devoid of importance or relevance to today's problems, but our knowledge is much vaster now and it is time to get rid of the "laws" and prejudices that bring misery under the guise of morality.

Misery caused by guilt of conscience caused by living opposed to "the golden rule" is a good thing for a society in my mind. What we are really talking about is removing the sting of guilt in ones conscience with doing so we will have peace and safety. Lovelessness by any other name is still lovelessness.





[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-06-2005).]

Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I'm going to give you two groups of words. One has to do with love and the other the opposite. Which side best describes your life as a whole? Which do you experience the most? Which side is most in you or happens to you?

Group A -

patient, kind, does not envy, does not boast, is not proud, is not rude,is not self-seeking,is not easily angered,keeps no record of wrongs,does not delight in evil,always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

ME\/

Group B -

lover of money,

sure but i would like to abolish it.

boastful,

no, just no.

proud,

yea

abusive,

hell no.

disobedient to parents,

i do what i want

ungrateful,

heh

unholy,

drink wine from his head

unforgiving,

so?

slanderous,

no

without self-control,

yup

brutal,

no

not lovers of the good,

define good

treacherous,

no

rash,

no

conceited,

no

lovers of pleasure,

yup



sexual immorality,

define immorality

impurity and debauchery;

yea

witchcraft;

is fun +2 FON staff of replentishment, turn undead

hatred,

depends

discord,

no

jealousy,

sometimes

fits of rage,

sometimez

selfish ambition,

nope anarchy is not selfish ambition

dissension,

naw/

envy; drunkenness

depends



How does the contrast between these two groups of words feel to you?

christian stereotyping other people you suck.

quote:Originally posted by NightVision:

Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

How does the contrast between these two groups of words feel to you?

christian stereotyping other people you suck.

Your making an assumption that I was asking you to use those words to measure yourself by or I was using it to measure you in judgement. Althought, I find it interesting that you did this, that's not what I intended. I was only attempting to show the contrast between one group of words to the other on how we experience them in our lives.

I was trying to reveal what true love is and what it is not. It is obvious we rarely experience the group A words in todays society.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I'm going to rewrite what you wrote and hope you'll see the point I was trying to make.

- The moral code that has the consequences that force you to follow it is a code with authority. There would be no immorality in the world if we could see the long term negative personal consequences instead of living for the hear and now.

That's not exactly what I said...

Authority is something that undermines morality, it implies that it takes unpleasant persuasion to keep people moral when it should be intuitive in most cases. What I am actually saying is that immorality has NO PERSONAL negative consequences. Immorality is self-serving, and ignoring personal harm, even long term, isn't immoral, it's stupid.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

You are right. Religion does seem to steal away from "free will" and dictate morality through rules and regulations. I'm not promoting or talking about religion. I don't like religion nor do I practice a religion.

You said morality is like a guide but a guide to where? I see that eventually the "guide" will bump into "law" which will eventualyl carry consequence.

I don't think free will is threatened by rules.

Morality is a guide to happiness, not personal but group happiness. This is the reason it can be hard to follow for some people, because they want immediate pay-off for their actions. This "bump" you speak of is merely the effect of morality on social organization. You will have consequences if you murder or steal in a civilized society, but it is not the law that determines whether killing or stealing is immoral. Sometimes even these "by default" immoral actions are morally justified.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

So, afterall there is consequence of immorality and morality.

Yes, but not personal.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Here is the spin. God's morale guide leads us to Him where man's morale guide leads to nowhere. After all what is a guide for then to keep someone on track and headed in the right direction.

What exactly do you mean that it leads to God? How do you determine whose moral guide it is after all? As I have said, man's moral guide need not be relative. We have man's nature which is a perfectly solid base for us to build morality on and we have knowledge enough about it (human nature) to attempt such a task. How is any God's word relevant when even a God-given morality is addressed to men? I see no purpose in following a moral code that doesn't serve man but the obscure goals of a deity.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Misery caused by guilt of conscience caused by living opposed to "the golden rule" is a good thing for a society in my mind. What we are really talking about is removing the sting of guilt in ones conscience with doing so we will have peace and safety. Lovelessness by any other name is still lovelessness.

Guilt of conscience isn't something created out of fear of consequences, something that can go away if you can "get away with it". Such guilt is a healthy thing.

What we really want to remove is the artificial guilt that comes from unfounded opinions that religion propagates under the guise of morality.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



Sin to the body has been compared to mildew in a home in parts of the bible. It grows and eventually takes over and destroys it's host. However, it is more then a parasite or plague to the human soul. To a single person a 'immoral' lifestyle may not be harmful to a community as a whole now. But, the long term affects is that it grows from person to person and takes over a city, then a state and then a nation.

This paragraph is totally speculative on your part and is far from the truth. What evidence do you have that "immoral" lifestyle, if you mean premarital sex, is ...infectious...and what are the consequences of it?

A study by an american sociology professor, Gregory Paul (Journal of Religion and Society), shows that the highest percentage of suicides, teenage pregnacy, and sexually transmitted diseases occurs in countries with the highest religiousness. How can this be? I'll elaborate below...

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



This will proably start another debate but, abortion is a matter of morality. This is because it is the consequence of casual sex outside of marriage and blatent disregard for the sound doctrines that would prevent such a thing.

No. It is the respect of those doctrines that allows it. Abortions do not happen because of casual sex, but because of stupidity and carelessness that is encouraged by religion. Condoms and contraception are not devised by the devil anymore than headache medication.

I agree though that it is a moral issue, it's just that the religious side is the immoral one. By claiming authority on the supposed supernatural origin of life, religion makes up moral rules that have no base and lead to unhappiness. Which is immoral.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



So the human thing to do is kill the growing baby to avoid the consequences of parenthood. It is now a national law. So now since the morale compase is broken 40 million plus individual human beings have paid the price for a guilt free conscience through the laws of abortion. So it is with morale relativity.

Sensationalism based on absolutely nothing... How can a damn law be responsible for guilt free consciences? It is force-fed ideas that bring this guilt and no matter what the law says, it doesn't go away.

I don't want to discuss abortion in depth because it's off topic, but I'll just say that it isn't about avoiding responsibilities as you so dismiss it. It is about not bringing an unwanted person in the world and ruining not one, but two and maybe more lives. Life isn't sacred and religion knows this very well because it never shows respect for it. In the end, these doctrines can lead one to believe that religion wants people to be miserable.

I dont' know how to respond to this elfstone. We are two ships passing in the night. Your claim is the problem of the world is morality dicated by religion. OK, I understand your views.

My views are the opposite. The problems of the world are not caused by "religious" morality but those who refuse to live by it. To abstain from sex is the only cure for societies unwanted life.

Whose way is better?

I don't have much more to say on this topic except I have a plea. Copy the last thread to a a .txt document and save it. In five years or ten years I would like you to read it again. I only hope that you see what it is you're preaching. I will not be able to convince you within the confines of these words.

That's fine as long as you do the same. I am not hard to convince when I face facts, arguments and evidence. Withdrawing with such a plea though is neither noble nor peaceful, it's arrogant and insulting.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

That's fine as long as you do the same. I am not hard to convince when I face facts, arguments and evidence. Withdrawing with such a plea though is neither noble nor peaceful, it's arrogant and insulting.

Like I said there isn't much more to say but, I'll at least have courtesy to explain myself. I asked you re-read what you posted because of the possibility that it was you who insulted every single God fearing person who reads your words.

quote:"Abortions do not happen because of casual sex, but because of stupidity and carelessness that is encouraged by religion."

Doesn't make any sense nor is it factual nor an arguement. It is an unproductive heretical accustation!

quote:"it's just that the religious side is the immoral one. By claiming authority on the supposed supernatural origin of life, religion makes up moral rules that have no base and lead to unhappiness. Which is immoral."

We are all bigots in our own ways aren't we?

A cop things a robber is bad and a robber things a cop is bad. Just a matter of perspective.

quote:

"It is about not bringing an unwanted person in the world and ruining not one, but two and maybe more lives. Life isn't sacred and religion knows this very well because it never shows respect for it."



The faithful hold life sacred and oppose abortion. This is true. It is the anti-religious who hold death sacred and oppose life. I've seen stoic woman willing to fight to the bloody end for their right to abort. Who is right?

These are the things that I can not respond to since you are so entrenched in the idea that everything about God is evil and everything about man is good! All I can say is, you stand on your side of the issues and I'll stand on mine. What more can be said?



[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-09-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Doesn't make any sense nor is it factual nor an arguement. It is an unproductive heretical accustation!

You cut out the part where I mentioned condoms and contraception which are a way to avoid unwanted pregnacies and are opposed by religion. I think that makes it factual and an argument.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

We are all bigots in our own ways aren't we?

A cop things a robber is bad and a robber things a cop is bad. Just a matter of perspective.

Definitely not. Please stop with the really bad analogies. How is it a matter of perspective when I am supporting that morality can have a solid base, not open to interpretation? It's funny how you dislike moral relativism but refuse to accept that secular morality is more absolute than religious one.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

The faithful hold life sacred and oppose abortion. This is true. It is the anti-religious who hold death sacred and oppose life.

It's really hard for some people to not think in black and white, isn't it...?

Hold death sacred and oppose life? How did you come up with that? That kind of talking shows how you consider those who do not agree with you as evil, without even listening to what they say. If the faithful held life sacred they would stop a moment to think about quality of life, instead of life just for the sake of it. They would worry more about protesting for living children dying in bombings, or because of embargos. These things are what really constitute murder, not abortions.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I've seen stoic woman willing to fight to the bloody end for their right to abort. Who is right?

These are the things that I can not respond to since you are so entrenched in the idea that everything about God is evil and everything about man is good! All I can say is, you stand on your side of the issues and I'll stand on mine. What more can be said?



There's tons to be said, if there are listening parties. I don't believe in God, so I can't say that he's evil. Even so, I have said before that religious texts are not without wisdom. Stop painting everything with your black and white pallette. I'm not "entrenched" in anything. But I will never agree that morality is a matter of faith, because faith is personal and morality involves everyone.

If you think you cannot respond, is it maybe because you have no argument that isn't based in the bible?

I'm a healthy, happy introspective person.

I don't need your beliefs so stop pushing them on me.

If you say A, you will have comitted pride and burn in hell

If you say B, you are a terrible sinner and will burn in hell

Group A - How the Human Race wants to see themselves

Group B - The reality

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

You cut out the part where I mentioned condoms and contraception which are a way to avoid unwanted pregnacies and are opposed by religion. I think that makes it factual and an argument.



Your implying that abortions are the result of religion speaking out against adultry. How am supposed to bend and twist my mind to understand that kind of logic?

What happened to taking personal responsibility for your own mistakes? People are making clear minded, level headed decisions to engage in the kind of behavior that leads to unwanted babies and then make irrational decisions to destroy them. So how is it the fault of the religious again?

quote:

Definitely not. Please stop with the really bad analogies. How is it a matter of perspective when I am supporting that morality can have a solid base, not open to interpretation? It's funny how you dislike moral relativism but refuse to accept that secular morality is more absolute than religious one

I see it depends on perspectives. My response doesn't change. secular morality changes with the wind. sorry..another bad analogy. What is it rooted in other then trends of the day? 50 years ago gays were banned to the closet. Today it's all about letting the freak flag fly. Whose to say what tomorrow will be? Murdering Christians or Jews maybe? Wait that's been done before. Secularism is not as great as you say.

quote:

It's really hard for some people to not think in black and white, isn't it...?

Hold death sacred and oppose life? How did you come up with that? I sometimes watch CSPAN. Some of those laws being made are contrary to protecting innocent life.

quote:That kind of talking shows how you consider those who do not agree with you as evil, without even listening to what they say. If the faithful held life sacred they would stop a moment to think about quality of life, instead of life just for the sake of it. They would worry more about protesting for living children dying in bombings, or because of embargos. These things are what really constitute murder, not abortions.

OK. so abortions are not murder. I get it. But, as long as you say the bombings, embargos and all the other thigns done at the hands of this now secular government is not done in the name of Jesus we'll be ok.

quote:

There's tons to be said, if there are listening parties. I don't believe in God, so I can't say that he's evil. Even so, I have said before that religious texts are not without wisdom. Stop painting everything with your black and white pallette. I'm not "entrenched" in anything. But I will never agree that morality is a matter of faith, because faith is personal and morality involves everyone.

If you think you cannot respond, is it maybe because you have no argument that isn't based in the bible?

I see the things I see. The bible just validates it. I never said morality requires faith. It comes in all different sizes, shapes and colors. It is the code we all live our personal lives by. The problem is when it all get's mixed up mismatched and confused then nobody knows what is up or what is down any longer. We are in the midst of a theoretical civil war in this world and the heart and mind is ground zero. All I can say is be careful on the ground that you stand on.

[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-17-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

I'm a healthy, happy introspective person.

I don't need your beliefs so stop pushing them on me.

Friend, I did nothing to click on your keyboard and mouse and send you to this page. You are here on your own free will. I'm just speaking on what I see and believe, as long as I am allowed to that is.

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

If you say A, you will have comitted pride and burn in hell

If you say B, you are a terrible sinner and will burn in hell





I find it interesting that you see it this way. How is loving your neighbor prideful?

quote:Originally posted by flatplat:

Group A - How the Human Race wants to see themselves

Group B - The reality

I don't think it's that clean cut but there is love being spread around the world along with hate. Just the other day the guy at Blimpy's (sandwich shop) gave me an extra stamp on my Blimpy's card. I am one stamp closer to a free sub. LIfe is good!!

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

The faithful hold life sacred and oppose abortion. This is true. It is the anti-religious who hold death sacred and oppose life. I've seen stoic woman willing to fight to the bloody end for their right to abort. Who is right?



I am anti-religious and I do not hold death sacred. I do not hold life sacred, either.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



I find it interesting that you see it this way. How is loving your neighbor prideful?

Because you want to be exalted in your humility.

Notice I said, "If you SAY a then you have committed pride and are deatined for hell"

What ever course of action you take you are destined for hell.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

The world is supposably going to hell because the majority are sinners, yet the majority are christians.

Lol. But to go to hell it must exist in the first place.

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

Because you want to be exalted in your humility.

Notice I said, "If you SAY a then you have committed pride and are deatined for hell"

What ever course of action you take you are destined for hell.



After careful consideration I agree with you. Without the covering of the blood of CHrist on our lives we will not make it no matter how many old ladies we help across the street or how many girl scout cookies we buy. It requires faith, repentence and baptism with the Holy Spirit.

Or accepting personal responsibillity and rejecting slave morality

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

Or accepting personal responsibillity and rejecting slave morality

Ever here the saying that nobody is above the law?

It is not completly true. The laws of man are what they are. They exist because of morale statutes that declare the golden rule. You know, do onto others as you would have done onto you. The laws of the government stand to keep the peace and order of the populous.

There are those who follow God's law which tells us there is no law that opposes love. (God's definition of love anyway) Therefore, those who live according to God's law by default are above the laws of man. This is the path to true freedom. It is obediance and surrender to God's decrees.

Rebellion to the laws puts one under them. Therefore they become slaves to it. Live in reverence to God and the laws of man have no place over you. Freedom from the world but mastered by Christ. Make sense?

While accepting authority uncnditionally may be good in the short term it is the complete anti-thesis of freedom



[This message has been edited by Fundokiller (edited 11-18-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Your implying that abortions are the result of religion speaking out against adultry. How am supposed to bend and twist my mind to understand that kind of logic?

What happened to taking personal responsibility for your own mistakes? People are making clear minded, level headed decisions to engage in the kind of behavior that leads to unwanted babies and then make irrational decisions to destroy them. So how is it the fault of the religious again?



Do you actually understand the concept of contraception? Unwanted babies happen when it is NOT used. If there is a pregnancy despite its use, then it is not a mistake, it is an accident. The real mistake is when contraception is NOT used and that's what religion advises. And you can be sure that most unwanted pregnacies happen because of the mistake and not the accident. So what religion advises leads to unwanted pregnancies which you are not allowed to terminate either, possibly fuckin up your life. How is it a matter of responsibility when religion forbids you to be responsible?

Of course, for you casual sex equals adultery. It's as if the man-made ritual of marriage sanctifies everything. Real love is diminished to nothingness. Adultery happens against the one you are in love with, not the one you are married with. Marriage is a failed institution and you can look at the statistics for this. You can even look at what Jesus says (not Peter or Paul).

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I see it depends on perspectives. My response doesn't change. secular morality changes with the wind. sorry..another bad analogy. What is it rooted in other then trends of the day? 50 years ago gays were banned to the closet. Today it's all about letting the freak flag fly. Whose to say what tomorrow will be? Murdering Christians or Jews maybe? Wait that's been done before. Secularism is not as great as you say.

The trends of society certainly do not define secular morality and it's a really weak argument to mention in this discussion. You totally ignore my basic argument which is that human nature is the basis of secular morality. That is certainly more solid than religious morality when there are hundreds of religions with different moralities. The trends of society depend on many things and religion is one of them. You can't blame the secular view for what these trends are, and without even presenting a single piece of evidence yet. Btw, I hope you make no connection between homosexuality and murder.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

OK. so abortions are not murder. I get it. But, as long as you say the bombings, embargos and all the other thigns done at the hands of this now secular government is not done in the name of Jesus we'll be ok.

Would it matter if it were? I get the feeling you think I am a Jesus-hater or something, when I greatly respect what is attributed to him, even though I am not convinced that he actually existed.

The fact is that the government may be secular but it can have the support of religious people. I believe it's an atrocious hypocrisy to support real murder of living children and then protest against abortion.



quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I see the things I see. The bible just validates it. I never said morality requires faith. It comes in all different sizes, shapes and colors. It is the code we all live our personal lives by. The problem is when it all get's mixed up mismatched and confused then nobody knows what is up or what is down any longer. We are in the midst of a theoretical civil war in this world and the heart and mind is ground zero. All I can say is be careful on the ground that you stand on.

"I see the things I see. The bible just validates it." Are you sure this is what's happening? The bible filters what you see, and what you get is not the reality. What you get is the bible-filtered version which of course is validated by the bible. Have you ever tried looking for rational reasons and compare that to the bible? Don't be scared to do that even though it may mean to discover that the bible is not the infallible truth. Read about psychology, read about evolution, read about everything that man has discovered in his god-given intelligence. Without knowledge there can be no understanding, and without understanding we cannot have morality. You cannot rely on a thousands of years old book forever, certainly not without criticizing it. Our knowledge is much vaster now and that gives us the authority to judge what ancient messiahs have told us. This is not disrespectful at all because the truth is not threatened by criticism. There is no civil war because the heart and mind are not meant to be separate. You cannot discard either.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Ever here the saying that nobody is above the law?

It is not completly true. The laws of man are what they are. They exist because of morale statutes that declare the golden rule. You know, do onto others as you would have done onto you. The laws of the government stand to keep the peace and order of the populous.

There are those who follow God's law which tells us there is no law that opposes love. (God's definition of love anyway) Therefore, those who live according to God's law by default are above the laws of man. This is the path to true freedom. It is obediance and surrender to God's decrees.

Rebellion to the laws puts one under them. Therefore they become slaves to it. Live in reverence to God and the laws of man have no place over you. Freedom from the world but mastered by Christ. Make sense?



Obedience and surrender have never lead to freedom. Some of us refuse to be lambs in the hands of executioners.

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

While accepting authority uncnditionally may be good in the short term it is the complete anti-thesis of freedom



Your idea of freedom sounds more like sedition bourne out of contempt.

If we are talking about man's imperfect civil laws then I agree.

But, if we are talking about the higher laws of God your view is not possible.

quote:Originally posted by SurahAhriman:

Obedience and surrender have never lead to freedom. Some of us refuse to be lambs in the hands of executioners.

Then that is what keeps you from the Kingdom of Heaven.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:

Do you actually understand the concept of contraception?

Yes

quote:

Unwanted babies happen when it is NOT used. If there is a pregnancy despite its use, then it is not a mistake, it is an accident. The real mistake is when contraception is NOT used and that's what religion advises. Correction - Religion advises abstinence. Within the confines of marriage is the only place for intercourse. This is so that the children conceived will be holy - or complete before God. The rest of your arguement falls apart from here because it is based on your false assumption about religion and contraception.



quote:

And you can be sure that most unwanted pregnacies happen because of the mistake and not the accident. So what religion advises leads to unwanted pregnancies which you are not allowed to terminate either, possibly fuckin up your life. This is not an absolute. Just because one doesnt' terminate doesn't mean their life will be messed up. Again, the church promotes abstinence.

quote:

How is it a matter of responsibility when religion forbids you to be responsible?

I see you you answer your own question but religion doesn't forbid you to be responsible. However, the responsibile person according to the church will abstain from sex until married where the likelyhood of an unwanted child is greatly reduced.

quote:

Of course, for you casual sex equals adultery. I didn't make it up. I'm just parroting the gospel on that one.

quote:It's as if the man-made ritual of marriage sanctifies everything. Real love is diminished to nothingness. Adultery happens against the one you are in love with, not the one you are married with.

Your on a rant here..not much I can say since it seems you are trying to say it for me.

quote:

Marriage is a failed institution and you can look at the statistics for this. You can even look at what Jesus says (not Peter or Paul).

My marriage is just fine and is getting better every day. You make it sound like marriage in general is a failure.

Are you talking about the failed instution of secular marriage or the marriage that God is talking about? The ritual of marriage is joining two people together by the soul and an oath before God. The vow can't be broken except for certain reasons. If those being married don't believe in God then what's the point other then a legally binding contract between two people. There is no spirit connection nor any true vow. There is no glue in that kind of marriage.

Of course the divorce rate is high and for that reason. Have you tried to compare the divorce rates between Christian believers and non-believers?

quote:

The trends of society certainly do not define secular morality and it's a really weak argument to mention in this discussion.

It's very relevent because it is exactly what is being discussed.

quote:

You totally ignore my basic argument which is that human nature is the basis of secular morality.

I agree and understand.

quote:

That is certainly more solid than religious morality when there are hundreds of religions with different moralities. The trends of society depend on many things and religion is one of them. You can't blame the secular view for what these trends are, and without even presenting a single piece of evidence yet. Btw, I hope you make no connection between homosexuality and murder.

There is nothing more solid or time withstanding then the commandments of God. Even if you don't believe in God - the commandments and levitical laws stand as a foundation to provide peace and prosperity to a people. There is no other code that has withstood the tests of time. When we see people following it the pastures are green and there is abundance but when the people reject them, then there are deserts and need.

What is it about presenting evidence on this board? If you are here argueing against the basic tenents of God I'm assuming you have already read the bible and have an understanding of what we're talking about. Do I need to research the history of morality and provide cases and points based on following the commandments and not? You're asking for way to much work to prove a point but I will do it if necessary.

quote: I believe it's an atrocious hypocrisy to support real murder of living children and then protest against abortion.

You make it sound too simple. When my wife had her breast removed because of her cancer, they couldn't just remove the tumor. This is because there were too many smaller residuals intertwined within the breast tissue. (I can't believe I'm using this as an example)

There was a great deal of healthy breast tissue that was taken with the tissue which was infected by the cancer. What was done had to be done in order to make things right.

quote:"I see the things I see. The bible just validates it." Are you sure this is what's happening?

I've seen things from both sides of the fence. I'm certain of what I have whitnessed.

quote:

The bible filters what you see, and what you get is not the reality.

That is an interesting response. Now you are telling me what I see and what I don't see? That's pretty bold.

quote:

What you get is the bible-filtered version which of course is validated by the bible. Have you ever tried looking for rational reasons and compare that to the bible? My friend, there is nothing rational about faith nor this world. The biblical account doesn't follow human logic nor should it.

quote:

Don't be scared to do that even though it may mean to discover that the bible is not the infallible truth. Read about psychology, read about evolution, read about everything that man has discovered in his god-given intelligence. Without knowledge there can be no understanding, and without understanding we cannot have morality.

I've said it before - tyring to understand this all by man's logic is like taking a movie on reel of film. Then going about to the middle and picking out one frame and then trying to determine the begining and end on that one frame.

quote:

You cannot rely on a thousands of years old book forever, certainly not without criticizing it.

I don't...I rely on the relationship I have with God through the Holy Spirit. This is where you don't or can't understand. I don't live by a book, I live by my conscience that is shaken daily by the Holy Spirit of God. When I read His word then I make the connection and understand what is happening.

quote:

Our knowledge is much vaster now and that gives us the authority to judge what ancient messiahs have told us. This is not disrespectful at all because the truth is not threatened by criticism. There is no civil war because the heart and mind are not meant to be separate. You cannot discard either.

It's a good idea that there can not be a seperatoin of heart and mind which is inner conflict but, it is false. I see conflicted people everywhere and even within myself. My heart desires one thing but my mind desires another. It never ends.

But how do you know what god's laws are?

They closest thing I can think of is obeying answered prayer.

I'd like to discuss this in further detail Sig where can I IM you?

hmmmm, witchcraft? witchcraft? are you trying to say atheists and agnostics and scientists are practising witchcraft?

YOU SIR need to go to a mental hospital!

i say religion and all the associated superstition is "witchcraft" if anything is gonna be called "witchcraft"

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

But how do you know what god's laws are?

They closest thing I can think of is obeying answered prayer.

I'd like to discuss this in further detail Sig where can I IM you?

The simple answer is; Group A and Group B are God's law. He says live like group A and negate group B. But, His law only stands opposed to group B. There is so much more to this but this is not a good forum to discuss it.

God's law is the bible in it's completeness. It doesn't read like a law book but, it tells us the law through the parables and prophesies. In some places it does lay down the law but in others it interprets them so we don't misunderstand it.

His law isn't mere letters on paper - He transcribes them to our hearts and minds and turns our will towards Him. The law is given to covict us while Jesus came to free us from it. That is another topic all together.

I could go on and on and on..but, I'll rest here.

I used to use Yahoo but my account was phished because I wan't paying attention. I don't monitor any others if you want to set up a time I'll create another yahoo account or whatever.





[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-21-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by TerminatorVinitiatoR:

hmmmm, witchcraft? witchcraft? are you trying to say atheists and agnostics and scientists are practising witchcraft?

YOU SIR need to go to a mental hospital!

i say religion and all the associated superstition is "witchcraft" if anything is gonna be called "witchcraft"

You're making some very wild accusations here. I dont' know how you tied all that together with what I presented. You missed the point if this is what you got out of it.

no i havn't missed the point

you believing that the only thing that makes you a morally responsible person is christianity makes you a dangerous loose cannon, what if one day you "lost your faith" or became "possessed by a demon" your delusion would perpetuate itself and you would turn into a psycopath with no moral qualms about raping babies etc.

that is why i said you should check yourself into a mental hospital lest your pathologies harm others.

My nickname is Fundokiller on Yahoo and xfire if you have it, What times are you online?

quote:Originally posted by TerminatorVinitiatoR:

no i havn't missed the point

you believing that the only thing that makes you a morally responsible person is christianity makes you a dangerous loose cannon,

Come on..do you really mean that. What's even worse is I've been trained by the government as a US MARINE!! I can put one in the black at 500m out with open iron sites. I think if I was gonna pop, I would have popped long ago. I'm too friggin lazy and kicked back to go postal.

quote:

what if one day you "lost your faith" or became "possessed by a demon" your delusion would perpetuate itself and you would turn into a psycopath with no moral qualms about raping babies etc.

You use some pretty sick and twisted logic friend. How did you even come up with raping babies? I can't imagine the thoughts that bounce around in your head to come up with stuff like that. I hope I have show some self-restraint here enough to prove I'm not out of my mind.



quote:

that is why i said you should check yourself into a mental hospital lest your pathologies harm others.

So now what? Is this all you have left?



[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-21-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Fundokiller:

My nickname is Fundokiller on Yahoo and xfire if you have it, What times are you online?



If I go on it will be between 6-9pm pacific

I'll create another Yahoo account and call it sigint2651

i'm just saying that your morallity is hanging by a pretty thin thread if you think that the only thing which gives it to you is the fact you are on the right side of god.

my point is, that only people who believe in the supernatural get "posessed" only people who believe in the supernatural "see ghosts"

i once had an arab student stay at my house, he was a devout muslim, and he turned to me with a straight face and said: "one day, a devil come into my room, and my father heard me shouting, and he say "in the name of God!" and the devil disappeared!" well what do you say to that? this guy has just recounted a paranoid delusion that he had. what are you supposed to say to that? what if he suddenly thinks i am a "devil"?

its religion and the mind latching onto things beyond reallity which destabillises a person, i mean, you believe in life after death. heaven if you do gods bidding, and hell if you disobey god. this is ridiculous.

i find it far more comforting to think that after i die, my body will decompose and the parts of my body will eventually be taken up by other forms of life and in another 25 billion years i will be the stardust i once was 10 billion years ago.

quote:i'm just saying that your morallity is hanging by a pretty thin thread if you think that the only thing which gives it to you is the fact you are on the right side of god.

Actually you may have a point. Hope is a funny thing. When you lose faith in the decency in the world and mankind what else is left but desperation. Where else can you turn if you knew nothing of God? If I ever lost faith I would lose hope. That is certain.

quote:

my point is, that only people who believe in the supernatural get "posessed" only people who believe in the supernatural "see ghosts"

I've never seen a ghost or anything along those lines. I did play with a Ouji board once though. It wasn't a good experience.

quote:

i once had an arab student stay at my house, he was a devout muslim, and he turned to me with a straight face and said: "one day, a devil come into my room, and my father heard me shouting, and he say "in the name of God!" and the devil disappeared!" well what do you say to that?

Hasheesh?

quote:

this guy has just recounted a paranoid delusion that he had. what are you supposed to say to that? what if he suddenly thinks i am a "devil"?

Have some garlic and a silver spike handy? dunno...

quote:

its religion and the mind latching onto things beyond reallity which destabillises a person, i mean, you believe in life after death. heaven if you do gods bidding, and hell if you disobey god. this is ridiculous.

i find it far more comforting to think that after i die, my body will decompose and the parts of my body will eventually be taken up by other forms of life and in another 25 billion years i will be the stardust i once was 10 billion years ago.

I used to think the same way and lived life a lot different then I do now. I understand there is a lot of weird stuff out there. There's no denying it. But, you are argueing both sides of the coin using the same logic for both sides. Translating that to one side is secular logic and the other is spiritual.



There is a great divide between the secular and spiritual. The rules that govern them are very different. You can't use earth logic to describe the spiritual and spiritual for secular. The spiritual logic can cross over to the secular but not the other way.

The rules that govern this world are for this world. When the rules of the spiritual come into this world it comes through the heart of man and transposes itself into thoughts and deeds. That person is now governed by the spiritual in all they do. What is from the earth returns to the earth like you have said but the spirit lives on.

I don't know why I just said all that...It's late and I'm tired I guess. I'm going to bed.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Correction - Religion advises abstinence. Within the confines of marriage is the only place for intercourse. This is so that the children conceived will be holy - or complete before God. The rest of your arguement falls apart from here because it is based on your false assumption about religion and contraception.

It is definitely not a false assumption. Religion is not indifferent to contraception (a small text here gives some history : http://www.mum.org/contrace.htm), but yes, it concentrates on abstinence which is probably an even worse position. I''ll get back to this later, but I can't but be appalled at the notion that some children are "unholy" or "incomplete" before God. Such garbage in the bible really makes me wonder how people like Paul came to be considered saints. Can you justify how children out of marriage are somehow inferior besides "because Paul said so"?

On to the abstinence that Paul preached. I'll give a couple of reasons why it is a bad choice. First, it suppresses natural urges at a degree which can be bad for your mental and physical health. At least, this is true when you abstain from masturbation as well. I also think it's irresponsible to abstain from sex before marriage, because marriage is supposed to be for life and getting married to someone you've never had an intimate relationship with doesn't make sense.

As for the argument that abstinence is what will save you from sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnacies, this is as logical as that not eating will save you from food poisoning.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

This is not an absolute. Just because one doesnt' terminate doesn't mean their life will be messed up.

Of course, it's not an absolute, that's why I used the word "possibly".

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



I see you you answer your own question but religion doesn't forbid you to be responsible. However, the responsibile person according to the church will abstain from sex until married where the likelyhood of an unwanted child is greatly reduced.

The likelihood of an unwanted child is greatly reduced when the couple is sexually educated, not when they're married. If a married couple has no clue about contraception they can reach 10 unwanted kids and no means to provide for them. Now, that's a happy family?

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I didn't make it up. I'm just parroting the gospel on that one.

Of course. I really wonder why you think the gospel saying it is enough. Do you ever think if it makes sense or if it has any realistic foundation today?

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

My marriage is just fine and is getting better every day. You make it sound like marriage in general is a failure.

Are you talking about the failed instution of secular marriage or the marriage that God is talking about? The ritual of marriage is joining two people together by the soul and an oath before God. The vow can't be broken except for certain reasons. If those being married don't believe in God then what's the point other then a legally binding contract between two people. There is no spirit connection nor any true vow. There is no glue in that kind of marriage.

What does belief in God have to do with the connection between a man and a woman? You speak as if atheists cannot love. If there is no love, marriage is just a legally binding contract whether it's done in church or a government building. Which is the marriage God is talking about and what is really the difference between that and "secular marriage"? If two people are joined "by the soul" as you say, does it take a ritual for them to know it? Or is the ritual just for God, the all-seeing, to take notice? You are not fond of secularism and yet attribute such significance to a meaningless ritual that is on a much more secular level than the bond that can exist between a man and a woman. God is love, they say. Love though doesn't require oaths and rituals.

If you look at Matthew 19.1-12, Jesus answers on the question whether a man should be allowed to divorce. He makes no reference to marriage at all, instead he refers to the time of creation and that God is what joins the couple in one flesh. Surely, "one flesh" refers to sex and not a ritual. If God, who is love, joins a couple, THEN it is cruel to be divorced. And adultery is commited when you marry someone even if God/love has joined you with another. It is clear in this passage that Jesus doesn't care for marriage and that God's union is on a completely other level. What Jesus says next about eunuchs is quite complex and we'll go way out off topic.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Of course the divorce rate is high and for that reason. Have you tried to compare the divorce rates between Christian believers and non-believers?

Is this an argument or an exercise in circular logic? Of course, divorce rates in christians are lower because they think divorce is a sin, (even though ironically, according to Jesus adultery happens even between married people).

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



There is nothing more solid or time withstanding then the commandments of God. Even if you don't believe in God - the commandments and levitical laws stand as a foundation to provide peace and prosperity to a people. There is no other code that has withstood the tests of time. When we see people following it the pastures are green and there is abundance but when the people reject them, then there are deserts and need.

Sorry, but the above is rubbish. Firstly, we are discussing morality, not the commandments of God and you have to establish that the two are the same. Also, you conveniently assume the correctness of your religion and act as if the other religions do not exist. Your religious morality isn't that solid when there is a variety of religions to choose from. The rest of this paragraph is totally untrue and baseless.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



What is it about presenting evidence on this board? If you are here argueing against the basic tenents of God I'm assuming you have already read the bible and have an understanding of what we're talking about. Do I need to research the history of morality and provide cases and points based on following the commandments and not? You're asking for way to much work to prove a point but I will do it if necessary.

I am not asking for you to present a paper for peer review. That would require me to act the same and likewise, the time I care to spend on a forum is limited. However, I'd like people to provide reasons, examples and justifications for what they say. A quote from the bible means nothing, unless you specify why you agree with it. In the time you spent to whine about needing evidence you could at least give an example of why secularism is a bad influence compared to religiousness.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



There was a great deal of healthy breast tissue that was taken with the tissue which was infected by the cancer. What was done had to be done in order to make things right.

I'm sorry you used this as an example but I will follow the same...

If there was a way to save the breast, you would follow it. If you chose to discard it anyway and later beat your daughter because she had a breast piercing, that's the same kind of hypocrisy. That's what I see many christians do about life, instead of a breast. Proclaim they hold it sacred when their actions say otherwise.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



I've seen things from both sides of the fence. I'm certain of what I have whitnessed.

My dear Sig...even the fact that you talk of "sides" and a "fence" shows the bible-filter at work.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

My friend, there is nothing rational about faith nor this world. The biblical account doesn't follow human logic nor should it.

This is where I think you are utterly wrong and where our discussion would end. But you wouldn't involve yourself in a debate if you really believed the above. Faith itself cannot function without logic and I don't use the adjective "human" in logic cause there's no other kind.

I'll concentrate on the "nor should it" part. When we are talking about morality and people's happiness why shouldn't we follow logic? In the end, if our faith is in the true, logic will only validate it. If logic, and specifically the scientific method, has been as succesful as to provide us with a means to communicate such ideas over the distance of thousands of miles, why do you think it would fail when it comes to morality? Its successes should at least give it a chance to try instead of being discarded like this on the account of faith, which need not be an enemy.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



I've said it before - tyring to understand this all by man's logic is like taking a movie on reel of film. Then going about to the middle and picking out one frame and then trying to determine the begining and end on that one frame.

That is an assumption that provides a steel defence for your case, but it is only an assumption. Even so, we are all men and noone can claim what the beginning or end of the film is. All we have is that frame, so all we can do is rely on what we have.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



I don't...I rely on the relationship I have with God through the Holy Spirit. This is where you don't or can't understand. I don't live by a book, I live by my conscience that is shaken daily by the Holy Spirit of God. When I read His word then I make the connection and understand what is happening.

Sorry but this is really self-contradicting. Would you have a notion of the Holy Spirit if you had never come in contact with the bible? How is it that you don't live by a book when you invoke the concepts introduced in it and use it to understand what is happening?

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

It's a good idea that there can not be a seperatoin of heart and mind which is inner conflict but, it is false. I see conflicted people everywhere and even within myself. My heart desires one thing but my mind desires another. It never ends.



Of course the conflict exists but it is because we hold these two separate. My point is that you can't outright discard either but take notice of both before you make a decision. Listening to only one of them can only lead to the wrong decision.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I'm going to give you two groups of words. One has to do with love and the other the opposite. Which side best describes your life as a whole? Which do you experience the most? Which side is most in you or happens to you?

Group A -

patient, kind, does not envy, does not boast, is not proud, is not rude,is not self-seeking,is not easily angered,keeps no record of wrongs,does not delight in evil,always protects, always trusts, always hopes, always perseveres.

Group B - lover of money, boastful, proud, abusive, disobedient to parents, ungrateful, unholy, unforgiving, slanderous, without self-control, brutal, not lovers of the good, treacherous, rash, conceited, lovers of pleasure, sexual immorality, impurity and debauchery; witchcraft; hatred, discord, jealousy, fits of rage, selfish ambition, dissension, envy; drunkenness

How does the contrast between these two groups of words feel to you?

Why is witchcraft wrong?

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:



It is definitely not a false assumption. Religion is not indifferent to contraception (a small text here gives some history : http://www.mum.org/contrace.htm)



I'm not concerned with what "religion" says nor can I take into account what is written on that website. It isn't a Christian perspective. In fact how the writer spins the view that there is some kind of common thread between religious beliefs is erroneous. On a final note the last thing I'm willing to do is take into account what the Catholic "religion" teaches about sex. I base my beliefs on what is in the bible not what is on a web page. However, none of that seems to be mentioned very much in that article.

quote:

, but yes, it concentrates on abstinence which is probably an even worse position. I''ll get back to this later, but I can't but be appalled at the notion that some children are "unholy" or "incomplete" before God.

You'll have to undestand first what it means to be unholy before you make an assumption as to what is being said.

This is an inward spirit issue. A fatherless child will be challenged in society much more then a child who has an intact family. We can not deny that there is an entire generation of fatherless children who are more beligerent then the norm. The "unholy" is meant to mean lacking in a balance of understanding what their role as a member of society is and even more evident of what their God given role in a family is.



quote:

Such garbage in the bible really makes me wonder how people like Paul came to be considered saints. Can you justify how children out of marriage are somehow inferior besides "because Paul said so"?

Paul was justified by faith and obediance. Not doubt and resiliance.

What do you mean by "inferior"? I didn't say a child with both parents are superior, I was saying that they are better equipped to deal life's challenges. There is no superior or inferior in this race called life. We are all equally under the same challenges of the life God gave us. That challenge is to return to Him by our own free will. Believe it or not.

quote:

On to the abstinence that Paul preached. Correction, Jesus taught this. Paul didn't make it up. He was teaching a Gospel that was already established.

quote:

I'll give a couple of reasons why it is a bad choice. First, it suppresses natural urges at a degree which can be bad for your mental and physical health. At least, this is true when you abstain from masturbation as well. I also think it's irresponsible to abstain from sex before marriage, because marriage is supposed to be for life and getting married to someone you've never had an intimate relationship with doesn't make sense.

The bond of marriage between two people before God has very little to do with the flesh but more so a spiritual connection. Love has more to do with a state of being over a physical action. You really have to seperate the two in order to understand what I'm saying. If someone is getting married for sex then I alrady see a major problem. Especially if they believe sex is a precursor to love at all.

In fact that is one of the best ways to show you truely respect and love one another is to abstain from sex. Of course this assuming both belive in God by Jesus. Otherwise none of this will make any sense. The church teaches people to abstain from sex before marriage to please God. Because it is by God the laws of adultry are given to us through His prophets. It is much better to please God then the flesh then to please the flesh and forsake God. How can that relationship be blessed out of disobediance? I'm trying to help you understand why abstinence is taught. It has nothing to do with sex or selffish pleasure but has everything to do with being obediant to God.

quote:

As for the argument that abstinence is what will save you from sexually transmitted diseases and unwanted pregnacies, this is as logical as that not eating will save you from food poisoning.

Are you kidding? Do you believe someone will acutally DIE if they don't have sex!?!? You must not be married!

quote:

The likelihood of an unwanted child is greatly reduced when the couple is sexually educated, not when they're married. If a married couple has no clue about contraception they can reach 10 unwanted kids and no means to provide for them. Now, that's a happy family?

So it is in the world. If contraception is what it takes ot avoid "unholy" "unwanted" children then what else can I say? Two people who follow God will do all in their power to abstain. This isn't for themselves but it is for their faith.

quote:

The likelihood of an unwanted child is greatly reduced when the couple is sexually educated, not when they're married. I hope I explained this in my previous statement. Following the templates God laid down for us will help protect us from making bad decisions.

quote: If a married couple has no clue about contraception they can reach 10 unwanted kids and no means to provide for them. Now, that's a happy family? Are we talking about a family who believes in God or why did they get married in the first place? Did they take a vow before God when they were married? It's important to know what the marriage is founded on before I can reply to the accusation. Being blessed with a child through holy matrimony is different then hooking up and just popping them out. Of course this again depends on faith. Otherwise what is marriage? What is the origin of marriage and family?

quote:Of course. I really wonder why you think the gospel saying it is enough. Do you ever think if it makes sense or if it has any realistic foundation today? Yes is does - more so today then ever. I'm watching lives being destroyed because they started believing their way is better then God's way. I gave my own testimony earlier to attest to that. I'm just trying to say, walk the straight and narrow and you are least likely to find a corrupt lifestlye. Somehow, you know this without me even saying it.

quote:

What does belief in God have to do with the connection between a man and a woman? [quote]

An honest question needs an honest answer. Because the Gospel says it is by God we are created. Man first then woman. We were created to populate the world and subdue it. Those that do what they are told to do will eventually be lead in to Heaven. Those that don't will not. The purpose in life is to get right with God - There is no other. Listening and then doing what He commands is the steps to do this.

[b][quote]

You speak as if atheists cannot love. Not exactly. I'm saying there is a form of love in this world which can't be denied. However, the many forms of love are missed on those who oppose God. As it's taught- what good is it to love someone who loves you? It means little. But to love someone who hates you means much more. So it is with God. Did you get it? True love perserveres even when hate is against it. How many do you know have been able to love when hated?

(All the atributes of love define God and we are taught that God is love. But, what is love but obediance to God. To have true love is to be right with God and through Him is the way to perfect love. Living opposed to Him is not love at all because the things that are done to oppose God show rebellion towards Him. There is no love in rebellion because if someone hates you you must love them back.

quote:

If there is no love, marriage is just a legally binding contract whether it's done in church or a government building. Which is the marriage God is talking about and what is really the difference between that and "secular marriage"?

The one where God is the head of the house where both man and woman submit to Him in their lives. That is the one who has true love.

quote:

If two people are joined "by the soul" as you say, does it take a ritual for them to know it?

No, the rituals behind marriage is just an outward confession before God and many whitnesses that you are taking a vow to be faithful to one another. The connection of souls is done by God. I.E. ("What God put's together let no man seperate")

quote:

Or is the ritual just for God, the all-seeing, to take notice? no..God already knows what He's done. Marriage is what I said above.

quote:

You are not fond of secularism and yet attribute such significance to a meaningless ritual that is on a much more secular level than the bond that can exist between a man and a woman. Not so, marriage is a very profound event. Taking a vow before God is a very serious thing to consider. Especially if the marriage is not by God the likelyhood that vow is going to be broken. Not good!

quote:

God is love, they say. Love though doesn't require oaths and rituals.

It takes much more then 'love' to be married. It takes a great deal of work and patience. Again, you sound like someone who has not been married.

quote:

If you look at Matthew 19.1-12, Jesus answers on the question whether a man should be allowed to divorce. He makes no reference to marriage at all, instead he refers to the time of creation and that God is what joins the couple in one flesh. Surely, "one flesh" refers to sex and not a ritual. If God, who is love, joins a couple, THEN it is cruel to be divorced. And adultery is commited when you marry someone even if God/love has joined you with another. It is clear in this passage that Jesus doesn't care for marriage and that God's union is on a completely other level. What Jesus says next about eunuchs is quite complex and we'll go way out off topic.

You are taking some great liberties with the scripture. It isn't possible to pick out one passage on a topic and then say this is all there is to it. Marriage is spoken of throughtout the bible in many contexts, covenents and era's. Wrap your mind around 1 Corinthians 6 12-20; 1 Corinthians 7; 1 Peter 3; Colossians3:18-25; Ephesians 5:22-33 to get a better understanding of marriage in the secular realm. However, the main reason for marriage isn't what you may think. It is more about a symbol of salvation. Mathew 25 talks about a parable of Ten Virgins. They went out to meet the bridgegroom to go with him to the wedding banquet. (I'm guessing you are going to get caught up in the wrong things when you read this) but I'll give the meaning of it. The bridegroom is Jesus who is coming to take up His church or His bride. This is an account of being ready for when that moment comes. Human marriage is a symbol or is a shadow of things to come.

quote:

Is this an argument or an exercise in circular logic? Of course, divorce rates in christians are lower because they think divorce is a sin, (even though ironically, according to Jesus adultery happens even between married people).

How is that circular logic? Marriage is a God ordained activity between a man and a woman. You really don't have a marriage in this sense if your marriage is void of God. What you have is a civil contract between you, your wife and the government. Think it through.

It is even possible for a man to lust after His wife in a way that is un-godly. That is making her an object of satisfaction instead of respecting her as his other half.

I just read about a guy who was trying to save his marriage. He claims to be Christian and his answer to his problem was to build a sex machine in his garage with hopes that sexual gratification is the answer to his problems. (He also claims to build them for others and sells them on the Internet)

She divorced him before he had a chance to finish it but the point is, here is a guy who mishandled his place and purpose in the marriage. He was using lust to smooth over his failure to love.

I said, "the commandments are time tested and a solid foundation one can place their life on" (or something similar)

You said -

quote:Sorry, but the above is rubbish. Firstly, we are discussing morality, not the commandments of God and you have to establish that the two are the same. The Ten commandments were handed down to Moses along side a few hundred other commandments. Within these commandments they were given the "Morale" - Ceremonial and Civil laws through the books of Exodus and Leviticus. The Ten Commandments are widely accepted as part of the morale laws. Does that establish it now?

quote:

Also, you conveniently assume the correctness of your religion and act as if the other religions do not exist.

I accept that other religions exist but that doesnt' mean they are true or are beneficial to ones soul. A true authority will have true consequences of following or not following the way. I've seen the rules applied in ones life and I've seen the life of one who has not applied the rules. The outcome of their lives were a testament to the truth in the word. I've yet seen the same natural occurance of consequence in any other religion. Therefore, I accept that I am following the one true straight and narrow path towards God through Christ Jesus.

quote:

Your religious morality isn't that solid when there is a variety of religions to choose from. The rest of this paragraph is totally untrue and baseless.

I would agree if this is said by someone who is still standing on the outside trying to figure it all out. There is an enemy to God and you are in the midst of one of his many snares. Religion is not the anwser, it is relationship. Again, the purpose of life is to get right with God through accepting His Son Christ Jesus, there is no other.

THe rest of the paragraph is the meat of the arguement. Do you think I mean farm lands are dry or do you think I'm talking about a person's spiritual state?

quote:

I am not asking for you to present a paper for peer review. That would require me to act the same and likewise, the time I care to spend on a forum is limited. However, I'd like people to provide reasons, examples and justifications for what they say. A quote from the bible means nothing, unless you specify why you agree with it. In the time you spent to whine about needing evidence you could at least give an example of why secularism is a bad influence compared to religiousness.

You got me all wrong. I think reigiousness is a bad influence as well. Morality doesn't come through dogmatic ritual nor does it come from doing good things in full view of others.

It's more defined by what we don't do when we should do it or what we do when nobody can see it. Anybody can act well and decent in public. This goes for both the 'religious' and the "secular" but the truth lies in the heart and mind and in those places we find our shame if someone finds out.

These are the things that will testify against us. These are the things that are the root of all our evils. Morality is about being the same person behind closed doors as you are in the public.

The great day of judgement is going to be an awakening where it will be all shame revealed. All those doors will be flung open and we will have to give account for all that we hide. Deal with it know and be forgiven through the covering of the shed blood of Jesus and that shame will be removed. Get right with God.

quote:

I'm sorry you used this as an example but I will follow the same...

If there was a way to save the breast, you would follow it. You are right - but you are using a hypothetical 'if' wherease in reality there is no 'if'. What was done had to be done to save the life which was more important then the risks of not taking healthy tissue.

quote:

If you chose to discard it anyway and later beat your daughter because she had a breast piercing, that's the same kind of hypocrisy.

This really just is a straw man arguement built no the hypothetical 'if'.

You're making the assumption that I would beat my daughter over a piercing that has nothing to do with keeping her alive over removing a breast to save a life. It's not a fair comparison. Neither would I beat someone over a piercing nor would I try to save a breast for appearances if it would increase the likelyhood of the cancer coming back.

quote:

That's what I see many christians do about life, instead of a breast. Proclaim they hold it sacred when their actions say otherwise. You lost me on this one. Discipline over putting ornaments into your skin has no comparison of a life threatening illness. BUt, this goes off into another topic that doesn't apply. Piercing seems to be a part of the abortion cult since it gives the appearance of promescutity. It's not a wise way to present yourself to the world or rape and perversion. I could be wrong though.

quote:

My dear Sig...even the fact that you talk of "sides" and a "fence" shows the bible-filter at work.

I never said I was trying to be objective here. I do see it through my bible goggles that's for sure!

quote:

This is where I think you are utterly wrong and where our discussion would end. But you wouldn't involve yourself in a debate if you really believed the above. Faith itself cannot function without logic and I don't use the adjective "human" in logic cause there's no other kind.

I defer, there is most definatly another type of logic to be used when talking about the spiritual God governed kingdom. Here's an example.

Explain why Jesus spoke in parables?

quote:

I'll concentrate on the "nor should it" part. When we are talking about morality and people's happiness why shouldn't we follow logic? because the heart and mind are in conflict. Logic derived from following the heart often leads into pitfalls. (You can't tell me you never got into a relationship you don't regret because you didn't see past the passion!) Logic derived from following ones understanding of the world will also lead into pitfalls. Me debating against evolutionists is a good example of this.

[b][quote]

In the end, if our faith is in the true, logic will only validate it. If logic, and specifically the scientific method, has been as succesful as to provide us with a means to communicate such ideas over the distance of thousands of miles, why do you think it would fail when it comes to morality?

Good question -

Because when you try to take a scientific approach to religion and morality you have to take all the evidence presented and weigh the differences to find the truth. This kind of logic will only send you away from it all because it makes no logical sense. You have to choose one and then live by it. The outcome of your life will testify if it is the right thing or not.

This is scientifically illogical to do. In order to use scientific logic everything has to be proven which we know it can't because it is dependent on faith.

[quote]quote:

Its successes should at least give it a chance to try instead of being discarded like this on the account of faith, which need not be an enemy.

I agree until it stands to oppose faith in God and draw people away with bullying, accusations of lower mental capacity, threatening physical harm, and all the other things I have whitnessed in the other topic of why creation should be taught in schools. When I see this type of "morality" associated with it then I know it is corrupt and dishonest. I have no faith in science because there is no morality produced other then what is savage as shown.

quote:

That is an assumption that provides a steel defence for your case, but it is only an assumption. Even so, we are all men and noone can claim what the beginning or end of the film is. All we have is that frame, so all we can do is rely on what we have.

Or have faith in what we are being told is true. Either we were created or not for example. Will there be an end of time or not is another.

quote:

Sorry but this is really self-contradicting. Would you have a notion of the Holy Spirit if you had never come in contact with the bible?

I wrote my experience a while ago. In it I said I didn't realize exactly what was happening. It wasn't until I read the bible until I understood it.

quote:

How is it that you don't live by a book when you invoke the concepts introduced in it and use it to understand what is happening?

Guess that's a mind bender isn't it. I use the bible the same way you use a mirror in the morning. I go to it to check my self to see if everything is ok.

quote:

Of course the conflict exists but it is because we hold these two separate. My point is that you can't outright discard either but take notice of both before you make a decision. Listening to only one of them can only lead to the wrong decision. Listening to both can lead to a wrong decision as well. It is wise to root yourself in a doctrine of tested wisdom and use that as a guide. If I have to choose 34 years of my own experience and thousands of years of collective expereinces, I will look towards the collective experiences. It is prudent to seek wise council, I'm sure you will agree.



[This message has been edited by Sig_Intel (edited 11-26-2005).]

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I'm not concerned with what "religion" says nor can I take into account what is written on that website. It isn't a Christian perspective. In fact how the writer spins the view that there is some kind of common thread between religious beliefs is erroneous. On a final note the last thing I'm willing to do is take into account what the Catholic "religion" teaches about sex. I base my beliefs on what is in the bible not what is on a web page. However, none of that seems to be mentioned very much in that article.

It's really tiring to debate when you are rambling like this. You denied the connection

between religion and contraception as a false assumption. I posted the article just to show that it is not. Now, show that what the article says is false and stop with the pathetic "it's not a christian perspective" retort. You actually accept only the biased sources? This isn't even a major point in our discussion.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



You'll have to undestand first what it means to be unholy before you make an assumption as to what is being said.

This is an inward spirit issue. A fatherless child will be challenged in society much more then a child who has an intact family. We can not deny that there is an entire generation of fatherless children who are more beligerent then the norm. The "unholy" is meant to mean lacking in a balance of understanding what their role as a member of society is and even more evident of what their God given role in a family is.

All of the above is unsubstanciated speculation. Firstly, there's no way to assume all that you wrote from the bible. Secondly, the "holiness" of the traditional family model is a myth that perpetuates prejudices. There is no credible research that shows anything negative for fatherless/motherless children compared to the "norm".

There is no escape from the negative meaning of words like "unholy", "incomplete" and "unclean" especially when used for infants. This only shows Peter and Paul to be uneducated and imprisoned in their old testament beliefs.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



What do you mean by "inferior"? I didn't say a child with both parents are superior, I was saying that they are better equipped to deal life's challenges.

This implies inferiority as do the adjectives used by Paul. Besides, you are very wrong in this view.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Correction, Jesus taught this. Paul didn't make it up. He was teaching a Gospel that was already established.

I seriously doubt that. This could turn to an interpretation marathon, but let's see the verses where Jesus teaches abstinence from sex. I'm interested.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



The bond of marriage between two people before God has very little to do with the flesh but more so a spiritual connection. Love has more to do with a state of being over a physical action. You really have to seperate the two in order to understand what I'm saying. If someone is getting married for sex then I alrady see a major problem. Especially if they believe sex is a precursor to love at all.

In fact that is one of the best ways to show you truely respect and love one another is to abstain from sex. Of course this assuming both belive in God by Jesus. Otherwise none of this will make any sense. The church teaches people to abstain from sex before marriage to please God. Because it is by God the laws of adultry are given to us through His prophets. It is much better to please God then the flesh then to please the flesh and forsake God. How can that relationship be blessed out of disobediance? I'm trying to help you understand why abstinence is taught. It has nothing to do with sex or selffish pleasure but has everything to do with being obediant to God.

What you are basically saying is that you don't care if what God commands is good, you just have to follow it. No explanation required. It's insane that you claim that the creator of the universe takes pleasure from premarital abstinence. You would think that a God of such powers could simply convince us that it is good to obey him instead of threatening. It is also beyond me how God takes offence at pleasures of the flesh, when he is supposed to have designed flesh this way. You see how it is hard to accept a God of such terrible shortcomings?

About the first paragraph, you are doing this separation of flesh/heart again. No, love is not a physical thing only, but it also isn't a spiritual thing only. It is both, and it is wrong to accept only half of it. It is questionable if "half love" is really love. Again, I don't see why a bond of two people before God has to be ONLY a spiritual thing. It is as if God is offended by his very creation and that's a contradiction that should trouble you.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Are you kidding? Do you believe someone will acutally DIE if they don't have sex!?!? You must not be married!

I am quite baffled how you arrived at this conclusion. What I said, and I think it was quite a simple metaphor, is that even eating can be dangerous when you are not careful but instead of abstain from eating, you can just be careful. The same is true for sex abstinence.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



So it is in the world. If contraception is what it takes ot avoid "unholy" "unwanted" children then what else can I say? Two people who follow God will do all in their power to abstain. This isn't for themselves but it is for their faith.





How is their faith served? How isn't it for themselves when ultimately their faith leads to a reward in heaven? And why should a married couple abstain from sex? Why shouldn't they use contraception to avoid a third child that they cannot afford? And finally, what does the creator of the universe has against sex for pleasure?

Your other paragraph, which I don't quote for size, talks about different marriages. Let's say it's a christian god-believing couple that made a vow before god in their marriage. Can they have sex for pleasure? If they can, can they take measures to avoid a child they have no means to raise? If they can't, God leaves them the choice of a number of poorly provided children (which is also a blasphemy when God has only one Son) and the choice of abstinence which is a punishment because it removes a valuable part of their perfectly legitimate marriage. So if you agree that christian married couples can use contraception, what does it matter what beliefs other couples have?

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



Yes is does - more so today then ever. I'm watching lives being destroyed because they started believing their way is better then God's way. I gave my own testimony earlier to attest to that. I'm just trying to say, walk the straight and narrow and you are least likely to find a corrupt lifestlye. Somehow, you know this without me even saying it.

That is quite an arrogant and false as well assumption. Your testimony and what you watch through the bible-filter don't prove anything. Since there are many people in the world that don't believe in God and their lives are far from being destroyed, I don't see why anyone would buy the false dillema of "God's way or the corruption way".

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



An honest question needs an honest answer. Because the Gospel says it is by God we are created. Man first then woman. We were created to populate the world and subdue it. Those that do what they are told to do will eventually be lead in to Heaven. Those that don't will not. The purpose in life is to get right with God - There is no other. Listening and then doing what He commands is the steps to do this.

Another instance where you take the gospel for granted. No questions asked. And no question answered either. Again you imply that a man and a woman can't be connected if they don't believe in God. You are crazy if you think you can support this somehow.

I want to ask you something else. God has gifted us with intelligence and free will. Since it appears that commandments are important to Him, I don't see why He bothered with free will. He could create us without free will, and no commands would be necessary. On the other hand, since we have both free will and intelligence He could provide explanations for what is good behaviour and in understanding the need for commands would again be obsolete. What you portray is an incompetent God who demands obeying without even dignifying His creations with an explanation. A God who diminishes his creations so, is not worthy of worship.

I don't want to sound so absolute; I actually admire a lot of what Jesus has taught in the gospels but the admiration comes because I see wisdom and intelligence in his words after critically reading them. Something that is not true for everything in the bible, especially Peter and Paul.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



quote:

God is love, they say. Love though doesn't require oaths and rituals.

It takes much more then 'love' to be married. It takes a great deal of work and patience. Again, you sound like someone who has not been married.

Do you understand what you are reading at all? Of course it takes more than love to be married, but you don't have to be married to be in love. It's not easy debating when you can't follow what I am saying.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



You are taking some great liberties with the scripture. It isn't possible to pick out one passage on a topic and then say this is all there is to it. Marriage is spoken of throughtout the bible in many contexts, covenents and era's. Wrap your mind around 1 Corinthians 6 12-20; 1 Corinthians 7; 1 Peter 3; Colossians3:18-25; Ephesians 5:22-33 to get a better understanding of marriage in the secular realm.

I have made it clear that I have no respect for the writings of Peter and Paul. Why do you turn to those when Jesus himself has given his opinion to the subject? It's not "taking liberties", it is choosing the higher source. You can discuss my interpretation of what Jesus said, instead of bypassing him and turning to the miserable disciples. Unless of course, they say something different than Jesus and that would be embarrassing.

The parable of the ten virgins uses marriage to symbolize the coming of Christ in the kingdom of heaven. It says nothing about marriage itself. Don't confuse the object of the symbolism for the symbolism itself.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



How is that circular logic? Marriage is a God ordained activity between a man and a woman. You really don't have a marriage in this sense if your marriage is void of God. What you have is a civil contract between you, your wife and the government. Think it through.

It is circular logic because you are using a statistic (low divorce rates) to prove a fact (christian marriages do not end in divorce, so they are succesful) when the statistic is the result of this fact. I'm saying that christian marriages don't end in divorce but not because they are necessarily succesful but because they regard divorce as a sin.

And once again you are saying that atheists can't be in love which is pure nonsense. Leave other kinds of love out of this, we are talking about love between a man and a woman.

About the guy and the sex machine, yes, that's insane and a good reason for a divorce but I don't think it counts as adultery. However, sleeping with your wife while being in love with someone else, does count as adultery according to Jesus.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



The Ten commandments were handed down to Moses along side a few hundred other commandments. Within these commandments they were given the "Morale" - Ceremonial and Civil laws through the books of Exodus and Leviticus. The Ten Commandments are widely accepted as part of the morale laws. Does that establish it now?

No. Learn to read. We are discussing morality, trying to define it. I am not concerned what the old testament says are the "morale" laws unless you can give me reasons why it should be applied as morality 2500 years later.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



I would agree if this is said by someone who is still standing on the outside trying to figure it all out. There is an enemy to God and you are in the midst of one of his many snares. Religion is not the anwser, it is relationship. Again, the purpose of life is to get right with God through accepting His Son Christ Jesus, there is no other.

THe rest of the paragraph is the meat of the arguement. Do you think I mean farm lands are dry or do you think I'm talking about a person's spiritual state?

Not everyone is as blind to metaphors as you seem to be. Be it dry farm lands or spiritual well being though, it's still untrue and baseless. I am guessing you wouldn't believe if presented with a happy unbeliever who leads a fulfulling life. Yes, they do exist and prove you wrong.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



You got me all wrong. I think reigiousness is a bad influence as well. Morality doesn't come through dogmatic ritual nor does it come from doing good things in full view of others. ...

No, you got me wrong, because by religiousness I also include all theistic views. I agree with the part about being good both in public and not. It isn't something that is supported exclusively by theists. The rest apocalyptic paragraphs, do they have a point?

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



This really just is a straw man arguement built no the hypothetical 'if'.

You're making the assumption that I would beat my daughter over a piercing that has nothing to do with keeping her alive over removing a breast to save a life. It's not a fair comparison. Neither would I beat someone over a piercing nor would I try to save a breast for appearances if it would increase the likelyhood of the cancer coming back.

You really have no grasp of metaphors, right?

Let's try again. I am trying to point out a hypocrisy. You never heard of "straining the gnat and swallowing the camel"? (i'm not sure im using the exact words of the bible). Straining the gnat is being upset about a breast piercing and abortion, while swallowing the camel is discarding the breast and supporting bombings when there are alternatives. Of course, the "if" is hypothetical, it's a METAPHOR! Where do I collect my patience award?

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



I defer, there is most definatly another type of logic to be used when talking about the spiritual God governed kingdom. Here's an example.

Explain why Jesus spoke in parables?

Because his audience was quite uneducated and unable to grasp the concepts he introduced without using metaphors. There's nothing unhuman about the logic of parables but seeing the trouble you have with metaphors, I can see why you think so.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



because the heart and mind are in conflict. Logic derived from following the heart often leads into pitfalls. (You can't tell me you never got into a relationship you don't regret because you didn't see past the passion!) Logic derived from following ones understanding of the world will also lead into pitfalls. Me debating against evolutionists is a good example of this.

I don't see what pitfalls are those. There's no "logic" that derives from the heart. You just said that mind and heart are in conflict.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



Good question -

Because when you try to take a scientific approach to religion and morality you have to take all the evidence presented and weigh the differences to find the truth. This kind of logic will only send you away from it all because it makes no logical sense. You have to choose one and then live by it. The outcome of your life will testify if it is the right thing or not.

This is scientifically illogical to do. In order to use scientific logic everything has to be proven which we know it can't because it is dependent on faith.

Nothing can be proven 100% but even so, science has come a long way with less than 100%. I am not trying to approach religion with science, just morality. It's something that CAN be done because morality is about people being happy, and we have a lot of evidence of what makes people happy, what makes them unhappy, what feels good and what hurts. These things are true for the vast, vast majority of people and any divergence is usually abnormal (sadism, serial killers etc). This is pretty solid. Religious rules and divine commands are not because they often contradict each other and move the purpose of morality to something other than man's happiness, which is not moral at all.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



I agree until it stands to oppose faith in God and draw people away with bullying, accusations of lower mental capacity, threatening physical harm, and all the other things I have whitnessed in the other topic of why creation should be taught in schools. When I see this type of "morality" associated with it then I know it is corrupt and dishonest. I have no faith in science because there is no morality produced other then what is savage as shown.

You have to understand that faith is something personal. If your faith is based on beliefs that have been proven scientifically wrong, then you are basing your faith on the wrong things. Faith is supposed to be unprovable, and the unprovable is not the province of science. If something can be proven wrong, then it's not something to have faith on.

The attitude you may receive has nothing to do with science itself. Science does not produce morality, unless we put it to work for this which is what I suggest we do. Creation, now, in the literal sense of Genesis, is one of those things that are not worth to have faith in. It has no spiritual worth in the literal sense. As a metaphor, (ok, I know, but try) though, it can mean a lot more and not clash with science where a shaming defeat is in order. You can understand the attitude you receive when it is the education of your country's children at stake just to satisfy the complexes of the fundamentalists. Evolution does not threaten anyone's faith, if that faith is healthy.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



Or have faith in what we are being told is true. Either we were created or not for example. Will there be an end of time or not is another.

As I said, faith is about something unprovable. We weren't created as Genesis literally says, this has been proven wrong. But God can still have created the universe in such a way as to bring us into existence and the Genesis story has value of another kind and not scientific. Your faith is still intact, and there's no conflict with science.



quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

Listening to both can lead to a wrong decision as well. It is wise to root yourself in a doctrine of tested wisdom and use that as a guide. If I have to choose 34 years of my own experience and thousands of years of collective expereinces, I will look towards the collective experiences. It is prudent to seek wise council, I'm sure you will agree.

Even though I disagree on which council would be wise, I also disagree that you should necessarily use one. Yes, it is prudent to seek for answers and advices but it is even more prudent to question them and rely on yourself as frequently as possible. If you seek council for every aspect of your life, then you are an automaton, a robot and not a human being.

quote:Originally posted by elfstone:



It's really tiring to debate when you are rambling like this. You denied the connection

between religion and contraception as a false assumption. I posted the article just to show that it is not. Now, show that what the article says is false and stop with the pathetic "it's not a christian perspective" retort. You actually accept only the biased sources? This isn't even a major point in our discussion.

I"m impressed you took the time to find an arguement for every single point. The website you presented hardly approaches the assumption that the church is the reason for contraception, abortions or bad behavior in general. Which 'is' a major point to the discussion.

The reason for unwanted aborted children does not fall on the Jesus faithful. These are personal choices and unless you haven't been to a Rite Aid lately there is contraception readily available over the counter included with the "safe sex" doctrine being taught to young school children. But, despite these efforts it still has not stopped the horror of people destroying lifes because they want to selfishly save their own.

All I see is loveless, brutal acts of selfish ambitions. Don't even begin to blame God nor those who follow Him for the folly of a generation who has denied Him.

quote:

All of the above is unsubstanciated speculation. Firstly, there's no way to assume all that you wrote from the bible. Secondly, the "holiness" of the traditional family model is a myth that perpetuates prejudices. There is no credible research that shows anything negative for fatherless/motherless children compared to the "norm".

There is no escape from the negative meaning of words like "unholy", "incomplete" and "unclean" especially when used for infants. This only shows Peter and Paul to be uneducated and imprisoned in their old testament beliefs.

I am reluctant to quote any scripture here because most don't even accept it as 'truth'. What would be the point. It would only turn people away from the debate based on their biased views of religion. There is knowledge and wisdom that is lost because of it.

However, it is common knowledge that a common thread among prison inmates who have decided to live a life of crime is the absence of a father figure in their broken family. This 'is' substanial.

In other words the broken family has produced a prison population who by there nature are anti-social. They are unholy rioters driven by demons who not only don't believe in God but also don't believe in your human dignity, personal rights or well being. They are violaters of the the greatest commnandment. Love your neighbor.

If they just followed the greatest commandment alone the prison population would be drastically reduced. That is assuming you know what the 'greatest commandment' is.

I don't have time to finish this but I'll leave that for now.

the words in group A ........

are words we are taught to aspire to.

the words in group B........

are words we are taught not to aspire to.



the words in group A.....

are difficult to aspire too

the words in group B....

are easy to aspire too

experience of living like the words in group B .........can lead one to live like the words in group A.

selfless desire is responisble for the words in group A

selfish desire is responsible for the words in group B

the words in group B are a reflection of the ignorant mind....

the words in group A are a reflection of the wise mind.....yet a wise mind was once ignorant.

I like that proposal Sig_tel.

Group A.

quote:Originally posted by Beta69:

Group A = Buddhists.

Group B = The majority of the world.

why is group a buddhists? im pretty sure that group a=christians according to 1 corinthians chapter 13 verses 4-7 read it. its good for you.

^"No true scotsman" Fallacy

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I"m impressed you took the time to find an arguement for every single point. The website you presented hardly approaches the assumption that the church is the reason for contraception, abortions or bad behavior in general. Which 'is' a major point to the discussion.

For pity's sake, use your brain when you read. I already wrote why I posted the article, read the reason again and understand before you reply.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

The reason for unwanted aborted children does not fall on the Jesus faithful. These are personal choices and unless you haven't been to a Rite Aid lately there is contraception readily available over the counter included with the "safe sex" doctrine being taught to young school children. But, despite these efforts it still has not stopped the horror of people destroying lifes because they want to selfishly save their own.

All I see is loveless, brutal acts of selfish ambitions. Don't even begin to blame God nor those who follow Him for the folly of a generation who has denied Him.

I see no way to reply to this, when you dodge everything I said, without repeating myself. I will wait for a full reply from you.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

I am reluctant to quote any scripture here because most don't even accept it as 'truth'. What would be the point. It would only turn people away from the debate based on their biased views of religion. There is knowledge and wisdom that is lost because of it.

It amazes me that you expect a simple quotation to count as validation. You know, you can quote and then use arguments to support the quote. I'm sure you can defend "love thy neighbour", why not other scripture?



quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:



However, it is common knowledge that a common thread among prison inmates who have decided to live a life of crime is the absence of a father figure in their broken family. This 'is' substanial.

Common knowledge eh? I think you mistake stereotypes, prejudices and misconceptions for knowledge. There's nothing substancial in the above.

quote:Originally posted by Sig_Intel:

In other words the broken family has produced a prison population who by there nature are anti-social. They are unholy rioters driven by demons who not only don't believe in God but also don't believe in your human dignity, personal rights or well being. They are violaters of the the greatest commnandment. Love your neighbor.

You will be surprised how much of the prison population believes more in God than human dignity and personal rights. Besides this, your connection between "broken families" and criminal behaviour is absurd. And you also contradict yourself when you say they are "antisocial by nature". If that was the case, broken families or not would not play a role. Never saw so many misconceptions and contradictions in so few sentences...